conext-author-response
Use when drafting ACM CoNEXT author responses, covering the initial-review rebuttal and — distinctively — the one-shot "major" revision response letter that must stay double-anonymous, map every "minimum necessary change" to a concrete tracked edit, and survive a single re-review by the original reviewers and a shepherd under PACMNET.
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill conext-author-response --agent claude-code
Same command for any agent — swap --agent for codex, cursor, copilot.
Weekly change comes from our own snapshots, not the repository page — it measures attention, not adoption.
# CoNEXT Author Response Use this after CoNEXT reviews are released. CoNEXT has **two distinct speaking turns**, and conflating them is a common mistake: a short initial rebuttal, and — if you receive a **one-shot major revision** — a full, journal-style **response letter** accompanying a revised paper that the original reviewers re-read exactly once. Both must respect double-anonymity: the letter itself must not reveal authors, institutions, testbeds, or repository ownership. ## Triage (both turns) - Answer what affects the decision: significance, soundness, measurement quality, baseline fairness, clarity, and reproducibility. - Use evidence that already exists or that the revision will concretely add — never a vague promise. - Correct factual misreadings first; a reviewer who misread a figure or a testbed setup is often persuadable. - Keep every word anonymous. Do not name your system's real name, your institution, your operator partner, a grant, or a private repository, even to strengthen a point. ## Turn 1 — the initial rebuttal Short and decision-focused. One decision-critical point per reviewer beats an exhaustive reply. Concede what is true, correct what is misread, and poin
- Triage (both turns)
- Turn 1 — the initial rebuttal
- Reviewer pushback patterns
- Anonymity in the letter (easy to slip)
- Calibration
- Output format
What does the conext-author-response skill do?
Use when drafting ACM CoNEXT author responses, covering the initial-review rebuttal and — distinctively — the one-shot "major" revision response letter that must stay double-anonymous, map every "minimum necessary change" to a concrete tracked edit, and survive a single re-review by the original reviewers and a shepherd under PACMNET.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill conext-author-response --agent claude-code` — it drops the skill into your project so the agent can pick it up. Swap the --agent value for codex, cursor or copilot if you use one of those.
Where does this skill come from?
From brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills, a repository with 909 stars. We read it straight from the repository tree rather than a submitted listing, so what you see here is what is actually published.
Is a popular skill a good skill?
Not necessarily. Stars measure attention, not adoption — a repository can trend for a week and be abandoned. That is why we show the weekly change from our own snapshots next to the total, instead of a single flattering number.